Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:36:16.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Question Form and Context Effects in the Measurement of Partisanship: Experimental Tests of the Artifact Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

George F. Bishop ,
Alfred J. Tuchfarber ,
Andrew E. Smith ,
Paul R. Abramson  and
Charles W. Ostrom
George F. Bishop
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Alfred J. Tuchfarber
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Andrew E. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Paul R. Abramson
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Charles W. Ostrom
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous articles in this Review, including a Controversy in 1992, debated the comparability of alternative forms of the question about partisanship asked in Gallup and Michigan SRC surveys. Bishop, Tuchfarber and Smith contribute to this debate by reporting and analyzing evidence from 15 experimental surveys in Ohio in 1991–1993. They conclude that the distribution of partisan loyalties will generally be the same whether one uses the Gallup or Michigan Survey Research Center question and that, contrary to findings of Abramson and Ostrom, the Gallup form is no more responsive to short-term political forces than its SRC counterpart. In response, Abramson and Ostrom agree that during many time periods there will be little difference between aggregate levels of macropartisanship regardless of which measure is used. But they argue that during periods of political volatility the Gallup approach will accentuate differences, while the SRC version will attenuate them.

Type
Controversy
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 88 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 945 - 958
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Paul R., and Ostrom, Charles W. Jr., 1991. “Mac-ropaitisanship: An Empirical Reassessment.” American Political Science Review 85:181–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., and Ostrom, Charles W.. 1994. “Question Wording and Partisanship: Change and Continuity in Party Loyalties during the 1992 Election Campaign.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58:21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belknap, George, and Campbell, Angus. 1951/1952. “Political Party Identification and Attitudes toward Foreign Policy.” Public Opinion Quarterly 15:601–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, George F., Oldendick, Robert W., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J.. 1978. “Change in the Structure of American Political Attitudes: The Nagging Question of Question Wording.” American Journal of Political Science 22:250–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, George F., Tuchfarber, Alfred J., and Smith, Andrew E.. 1992. “Question Wording and Partisanship: An Experimental Test of the Hypothesis.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bishop, George F., Tuchfarber, Alfred J., and Smith, Andrew E.. 1993. “Question Form and Context Effects in the Measurement of Partisanship.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.Google Scholar
Borrelli, Stephen, Lockerbie, Brad, and Niemi, Richard G.. 1987. “Why the Democrat-Republican Partisanship Gap Varies from Poll to Poll.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51:115–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E., and Pierce, Roy. 1985. “Measuring Partisanship.” Political Methodology 11:143–66.Google Scholar
Fine, Terri S. 1992. “The Impact of Question Wording on Party Identification Responses.” Presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Petersburg, FL.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles F. 1992. “Measurement and Dynamics of Party Identification.” Political behavior 14:297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., Brody, Richard A., and Snider, Paul M.-man. 1992. “Introduction to Special Issue on Party Identification.” Political Behavior 14:193–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankovic, Kathleen A. 1992. “Reading between the Polls.” New York Times, 27 June.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip, and Schickler, Eric. 1993. “Multiple-Measure Assessment of Party Identification.” Public Opinion Quarterly 57:503–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugick, Larry. 1991. “Party Identification: The Disparity between Gallup's In-Person and Telephone Interview Findings.” Public Perspective 2:23–24.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard. 1992. “Party Identification Measures in the Anglo-American Democracies: A National Survey Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 36:542–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagay, Michael R. 1991. “Rise in GOP Loyalty Now Ebbing, Poll Finds.” New York Times, 2 June.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Palfrey, Thomas R., eds. 1993. Experimental Foundations of Political Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohut, Andrew. 1991. “Questioning Party Identification.” Public Perspective 2:21–22.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Berent, Matthew K.. 1993. “Comparisons of Party Identification and Policy Preferences: The Impact of Survey Question Format.” American Journal of Political Science 37:941–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erickson, Robert S., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. “Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review 83:1125–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erickson, Robert S., Stimson, James A., Abramson, Paul R. and Ostrom, Charles W. Jr., 1992. “Question Wording and Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review 86:475–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuliep, James W., ed. 1991. Replication Research in the Social Sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., and Weisberg, Herbert F., eds. 1993a. Classics in Voting Behavior. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., and Weisberg, Herbert F., eds. 1993b. Controversies in Voting Behavior. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Rademacher, Eric W. 1993. “The Measurement and Meaning of Party Identification: An Historical and Experimental Investigation.” University of Cincinnati. Typescript.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard. 1982. “Artifacts Are in the Mind of the Beholder.” American Sociologist 17:21–28.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Presser, Stanley. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Norbert, and Sudman, Seymour, eds. 1992. Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Tom W. 1978. “In Search of House Effects: A Comparison of Responses to Various Questions by Different Survey Organizations.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42:443–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James E., and Marcus, George E.. 1978. “Ideological Constraint in the Mass Public: A Methodological Critique and Some New Findings.” American Journal of Political Science 22:233–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1980. “A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Party Identification.” Political Behavior 2:33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar